are all calories equal?
Replies
-
stanmann571 wrote: »CarvedTones wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »CarvedTones wrote: »neugebauer52 wrote: »BUT.... doesn't high fibre food need more energy for digestion? Theoretically - if one could eat say... celery sticks all day long, 2ooo calories worth would actually need more calories to digest. Obviously not a solution to weight loss, but some high fibre foods fill you up and burn more energy....(?)
Every study I have seen about increasing calories of chewing and/or digestion has come to the same conclusion - true, but negligible, with one exception, There was one on nut butters and it turned out that with chunky, up to 20% of the calories passed through (I feel for the scientists testing poop for calories) while with smooth it is near zero.
Source, please.
Digging for it. I found something close that has a lot of info relevant to this discussion:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/the-hidden-truths-about-calories/
In that one they found that processed cheese and white bread yielded more net calories than whole grain bread with seeds and regular cheese with the asme calorie count. It also has a section entitled "A calorie is not a calorie" which is a little misleading. But lots of interesting info. Still looking for the other one.
The followup question then is. Is this like the sugar in baked goods discussion where we're looking at 2-5% of the total calories and at the end of the day over time it's a rounding error, or is it meaningful?
FWIW, big percent, very very small study:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3402/fnr.v54i0.5144
I haven't pursued it because I like eating what I like eating, and what I like eating is mostly whole foods, so I have no idea whether anyone's investigated further. Reading between the lines, this one appears to have been a bit of a rough spitball exercise to see whether there might be a there there.
0 -
CarvedTones wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »CarvedTones wrote: »neugebauer52 wrote: »BUT.... doesn't high fibre food need more energy for digestion? Theoretically - if one could eat say... celery sticks all day long, 2ooo calories worth would actually need more calories to digest. Obviously not a solution to weight loss, but some high fibre foods fill you up and burn more energy....(?)
Every study I have seen about increasing calories of chewing and/or digestion has come to the same conclusion - true, but negligible, with one exception, There was one on nut butters and it turned out that with chunky, up to 20% of the calories passed through (I feel for the scientists testing poop for calories) while with smooth it is near zero.
Source, please.
Ok, here is deep science on almonds:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27713968
Measured ME (kcal g-1) of whole natural almonds (4.42), whole roasted almonds (4.86), and chopped almonds (5.04) was significantly lower than predicted with Atwater factors (P < 0.001); ME of almond butter (6.53 kcal g-1) was similar to predicted (P = 0.08).
I think the ratio of 4.45:6.53 is significant. 4.45 is only 68% of 6.53.
Still not the one I read that had other nuts listed also, but is evidence for the point I made. I am done searching since this one is probably a better source than the article I was looking for anyway.
ratios are interesting but not necessarily significant.
Eating bacon increases your risk of Colo-rectal cancer by 20-25%. From about 4.8% to about 6.5%. depending on the study you look at. 25% is scary and statistically significant. 4.8 to 6.5 is statistical noise for the average person. I increase my fatality risk more by turning on my radio or answering my phone using a hands free device.10 -
stanmann571 wrote: »CarvedTones wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »CarvedTones wrote: »neugebauer52 wrote: »BUT.... doesn't high fibre food need more energy for digestion? Theoretically - if one could eat say... celery sticks all day long, 2ooo calories worth would actually need more calories to digest. Obviously not a solution to weight loss, but some high fibre foods fill you up and burn more energy....(?)
Every study I have seen about increasing calories of chewing and/or digestion has come to the same conclusion - true, but negligible, with one exception, There was one on nut butters and it turned out that with chunky, up to 20% of the calories passed through (I feel for the scientists testing poop for calories) while with smooth it is near zero.
Source, please.
Ok, here is deep science on almonds:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27713968
Measured ME (kcal g-1) of whole natural almonds (4.42), whole roasted almonds (4.86), and chopped almonds (5.04) was significantly lower than predicted with Atwater factors (P < 0.001); ME of almond butter (6.53 kcal g-1) was similar to predicted (P = 0.08).
I think the ratio of 4.45:6.53 is significant. 4.45 is only 68% of 6.53.
Still not the one I read that had other nuts listed also, but is evidence for the point I made. I am done searching since this one is probably a better source than the article I was looking for anyway.
ratios are interesting but not necessarily significant.
Eating bacon increases your risk of Colo-rectal cancer by 20-25%. From about 4.8% to about 6.5%. depending on the study you look at. 25% is scary and statistically significant. 4.8 to 6.5 is statistical noise for the average person. I increase my fatality risk more by turning on my radio or answering my phone using a hands free device.
But in the case of the almonds, it means if you look up 17g of almonds and almond butter, they both say 101 calories. But if that is 17g of raw almonds, you well get about 68 calories. If you really like almonds and eat lot of them, you might eat 5 times that much in a day, with a difference of about 160 calories. That's enough to make maintenance trickier (if that's possible
).
BTW - a calorie is still a calorie; it just seems that some foods can be made to deliver more to you and have less pass through if processed.
EDIT - I see you are getting some Woos. Probably for the hands free phone thing; that's been debunked.0 -
1. Snickers is nutritious.
2. Snickers is more filling to me. Chicken breast is yuck. To each their own as far as satiety and taste is concerned.
3. 200 calories are 200 calories as far as weight loss is concerned.11 -
Yes, all calories equal one calorie (in the same way all inches measure one inch, or all kilowatts equal one kilowatt). They all have the same effect on weight loss. If you take in more than you burn, you will gain weight; if you take in fewer than you burn, you will lose weight.
No, not all foods contain the same macro- and micronutrients per calorie. You need a variety of foods with a variety of nutrients for health and satiety, and you need a variety of foods with a variety of tastes and textures for pleasure.5 -
CarvedTones wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »CarvedTones wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »CarvedTones wrote: »neugebauer52 wrote: »BUT.... doesn't high fibre food need more energy for digestion? Theoretically - if one could eat say... celery sticks all day long, 2ooo calories worth would actually need more calories to digest. Obviously not a solution to weight loss, but some high fibre foods fill you up and burn more energy....(?)
Every study I have seen about increasing calories of chewing and/or digestion has come to the same conclusion - true, but negligible, with one exception, There was one on nut butters and it turned out that with chunky, up to 20% of the calories passed through (I feel for the scientists testing poop for calories) while with smooth it is near zero.
Source, please.
Ok, here is deep science on almonds:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27713968
Measured ME (kcal g-1) of whole natural almonds (4.42), whole roasted almonds (4.86), and chopped almonds (5.04) was significantly lower than predicted with Atwater factors (P < 0.001); ME of almond butter (6.53 kcal g-1) was similar to predicted (P = 0.08).
I think the ratio of 4.45:6.53 is significant. 4.45 is only 68% of 6.53.
Still not the one I read that had other nuts listed also, but is evidence for the point I made. I am done searching since this one is probably a better source than the article I was looking for anyway.
ratios are interesting but not necessarily significant.
Eating bacon increases your risk of Colo-rectal cancer by 20-25%. From about 4.8% to about 6.5%. depending on the study you look at. 25% is scary and statistically significant. 4.8 to 6.5 is statistical noise for the average person. I increase my fatality risk more by turning on my radio or answering my phone using a hands free device.
But in the case of the almonds, it means if you look up 17g of almonds and almond butter, they both say 101 calories. But if that is 17g of raw almonds, you well get about 68 calories. If you really like almonds and eat lot of them, you might eat 5 times that much in a day, with a difference of about 160 calories. That's enough to make maintenance trickier (if that's possible ).
BTW - a calorie is still a calorie; it just seems that some foods can be made to deliver more to you and have less pass through if processed.
EDIT - I see you are getting some Woos. Probably for the hands free phone thing; that's been debunked.
I think you're confusing radiation/cancer risk (which even under the risk theory is not positively correlated with use of a hands-free device with distracted driving risk, which is positively correlated with mobile device use even if you're not handling the phone.5 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »CarvedTones wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »CarvedTones wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »CarvedTones wrote: »neugebauer52 wrote: »BUT.... doesn't high fibre food need more energy for digestion? Theoretically - if one could eat say... celery sticks all day long, 2ooo calories worth would actually need more calories to digest. Obviously not a solution to weight loss, but some high fibre foods fill you up and burn more energy....(?)
Every study I have seen about increasing calories of chewing and/or digestion has come to the same conclusion - true, but negligible, with one exception, There was one on nut butters and it turned out that with chunky, up to 20% of the calories passed through (I feel for the scientists testing poop for calories) while with smooth it is near zero.
Source, please.
Ok, here is deep science on almonds:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27713968
Measured ME (kcal g-1) of whole natural almonds (4.42), whole roasted almonds (4.86), and chopped almonds (5.04) was significantly lower than predicted with Atwater factors (P < 0.001); ME of almond butter (6.53 kcal g-1) was similar to predicted (P = 0.08).
I think the ratio of 4.45:6.53 is significant. 4.45 is only 68% of 6.53.
Still not the one I read that had other nuts listed also, but is evidence for the point I made. I am done searching since this one is probably a better source than the article I was looking for anyway.
ratios are interesting but not necessarily significant.
Eating bacon increases your risk of Colo-rectal cancer by 20-25%. From about 4.8% to about 6.5%. depending on the study you look at. 25% is scary and statistically significant. 4.8 to 6.5 is statistical noise for the average person. I increase my fatality risk more by turning on my radio or answering my phone using a hands free device.
But in the case of the almonds, it means if you look up 17g of almonds and almond butter, they both say 101 calories. But if that is 17g of raw almonds, you well get about 68 calories. If you really like almonds and eat lot of them, you might eat 5 times that much in a day, with a difference of about 160 calories. That's enough to make maintenance trickier (if that's possible ).
BTW - a calorie is still a calorie; it just seems that some foods can be made to deliver more to you and have less pass through if processed.
EDIT - I see you are getting some Woos. Probably for the hands free phone thing; that's been debunked.
I think you're confusing radiation/cancer risk (which even under the risk theory is not positively correlated with use of a hands-free device with distracted driving risk, which is positively correlated with mobile device use even if you're not handling the phone.
Yes. Using a hands free device increases your accident risk. As does having a passenger or even having the radio playing.5 -
stanmann571 wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »CarvedTones wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »CarvedTones wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »CarvedTones wrote: »neugebauer52 wrote: »BUT.... doesn't high fibre food need more energy for digestion? Theoretically - if one could eat say... celery sticks all day long, 2ooo calories worth would actually need more calories to digest. Obviously not a solution to weight loss, but some high fibre foods fill you up and burn more energy....(?)
Every study I have seen about increasing calories of chewing and/or digestion has come to the same conclusion - true, but negligible, with one exception, There was one on nut butters and it turned out that with chunky, up to 20% of the calories passed through (I feel for the scientists testing poop for calories) while with smooth it is near zero.
Source, please.
Ok, here is deep science on almonds:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27713968
Measured ME (kcal g-1) of whole natural almonds (4.42), whole roasted almonds (4.86), and chopped almonds (5.04) was significantly lower than predicted with Atwater factors (P < 0.001); ME of almond butter (6.53 kcal g-1) was similar to predicted (P = 0.08).
I think the ratio of 4.45:6.53 is significant. 4.45 is only 68% of 6.53.
Still not the one I read that had other nuts listed also, but is evidence for the point I made. I am done searching since this one is probably a better source than the article I was looking for anyway.
ratios are interesting but not necessarily significant.
Eating bacon increases your risk of Colo-rectal cancer by 20-25%. From about 4.8% to about 6.5%. depending on the study you look at. 25% is scary and statistically significant. 4.8 to 6.5 is statistical noise for the average person. I increase my fatality risk more by turning on my radio or answering my phone using a hands free device.
But in the case of the almonds, it means if you look up 17g of almonds and almond butter, they both say 101 calories. But if that is 17g of raw almonds, you well get about 68 calories. If you really like almonds and eat lot of them, you might eat 5 times that much in a day, with a difference of about 160 calories. That's enough to make maintenance trickier (if that's possible ).
BTW - a calorie is still a calorie; it just seems that some foods can be made to deliver more to you and have less pass through if processed.
EDIT - I see you are getting some Woos. Probably for the hands free phone thing; that's been debunked.
I think you're confusing radiation/cancer risk (which even under the risk theory is not positively correlated with use of a hands-free device with distracted driving risk, which is positively correlated with mobile device use even if you're not handling the phone.
Yes. Using a hands free device increases your accident risk. As does having a passenger or even having the radio playing.
Yeah, I misunderstood. Last I heard statistics on it, the number one distraction that caused people to crash was reaching for a moving object. That may have been before cell phone use became rampant. Or before SiriusXM, where you scroll through a long list of stations instead of just pressing a button.0 -
Macro and micronutrients plus insulin spikes aside... sure8
-
in terms of weight loss, yet. in terms of nutrition, no.
3 -
Thermodynamically, yes. A calorie is a measurable unit of energy. What isn't the same is the source of the calories - protiens, salts, glucose, and so forth. The various chemicals that make up everything that we put into our bodies is where we see the differences. Our organs require different chemicals in order to function properly, the CNS requires various salts (among other things), particularly chlorides and potassium or our neurons will slowly stop firing (brain shuts down). Muscles require other chemicals in order to function. And so forth.0
-
Thermodynamically, yes. A calorie is a measurable unit of energy. What isn't the same is the source of the calories - protiens, salts, glucose, and so forth. The various chemicals that make up everything that we put into our bodies is where we see the differences. Our organs require different chemicals in order to function properly, the CNS requires various salts (among other things), particularly chlorides and potassium or our neurons will slowly stop firing (brain shuts down). Muscles require other chemicals in order to function. And so forth.
Yet what some people don't realize is that you don't have to bend over backward and stress over every morsel to get enough of most these chemicals, a reasonable balanced diet is more than enough and majoring in minors or being deathly afraid of certain foods is not necessary or even productive.13 -
Thermodynamically, yes. A calorie is a measurable unit of energy. What isn't the same is the source of the calories - protiens, salts, glucose, and so forth. The various chemicals that make up everything that we put into our bodies is where we see the differences. Our organs require different chemicals in order to function properly, the CNS requires various salts (among other things), particularly chlorides and potassium or our neurons will slowly stop firing (brain shuts down). Muscles require other chemicals in order to function. And so forth.
Salts don't have calories.3 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »Yet what some people don't realize is that you don't have to bend over backward and stress over every morsel to get enough of most these chemicals, a reasonable balanced diet is more than enough and majoring in minors or being deathly afraid of certain foods is not necessary or even productive.
Dieting is one of those things that seems to suffer from too much information. Some people are getting so anxious about nutrition because they fear this or that is happening. Humans have managed to survive on this planet without tracking macros, nutrients, or water for a very long time. The human body is usually quite resilient. The biggest thing we need to provide ourselves is fuel and oddly enough I see so many threads with people undereating because they are worried about nutrition so they eat "healthy" until they have no more appetite and that is backwards.
6 -
More like it's one of those things that suffers from too much misinformation. The diet industry makes billions of dollars convincing people that they're missing something in their lives and need supplements, diet programs, etc. to succeed and be healthy.amusedmonkey wrote: »Yet what some people don't realize is that you don't have to bend over backward and stress over every morsel to get enough of most these chemicals, a reasonable balanced diet is more than enough and majoring in minors or being deathly afraid of certain foods is not necessary or even productive.
Dieting is one of those things that seems to suffer from too much information. Some people are getting so anxious about nutrition because they fear this or that is happening. Humans have managed to survive on this planet without tracking macros, nutrients, or water for a very long time. The human body is usually quite resilient. The biggest thing we need to provide ourselves is fuel and oddly enough I see so many threads with people undereating because they are worried about nutrition so they eat "healthy" until they have no more appetite and that is backwards.7 -
More like it's one of those things that suffers from too much misinformation. The diet industry makes billions of dollars convincing people that they're missing something in their lives and need supplements, diet programs, etc. to succeed and be healthy.amusedmonkey wrote: »Yet what some people don't realize is that you don't have to bend over backward and stress over every morsel to get enough of most these chemicals, a reasonable balanced diet is more than enough and majoring in minors or being deathly afraid of certain foods is not necessary or even productive.
Dieting is one of those things that seems to suffer from too much information. Some people are getting so anxious about nutrition because they fear this or that is happening. Humans have managed to survive on this planet without tracking macros, nutrients, or water for a very long time. The human body is usually quite resilient. The biggest thing we need to provide ourselves is fuel and oddly enough I see so many threads with people undereating because they are worried about nutrition so they eat "healthy" until they have no more appetite and that is backwards.
I have a whole box full of magic bullets.
I wanted so badly to believe I could do this with less effort. Turns out all you have to do is be diligent and patient...5
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions